Subscribe to Our Mailing List

St. Vincent of Lérins and Catholicity

A fundamentalist Protestant publication recently published an attack against
Orthodoxy in which the accusation was made that Father Georges
Florovsky and his "followers" reject St.
Vincentspecifically his definition of Catholicity. I have
not read much of Florovsky, but I have a hard time believing that
this claim is correct. (Fr. J.W., TX)

Neither did Father
Florovsky reject nor have his "followers" ever rejected St. Vincent and his definition of
catholicity. Rather, Father Florovsky and those who have expanded
on his notions point out that the Vincentian formula,
"...quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum
est," is not adequate, per se, to describe the catholicity of the Church.
Catholicity is not a matter of geography and majority (what is
believed everywhere
and by everyone), since it is often the case that
truth resides in the minority (the "little flock") and
among even the very few (e.g., the Cappadocians or the
anti-unionists at the time of St. Mark Evgenikos). What Father Florovsky, in
particular, argues is that we must understand St. Vincent in
terms of a larger consensus, a kind of existential universality
that encompasses the whole spiritual voice of the Church. "Universal
consent," a Protestant idea, can easily be derived from a
misunderstanding of St. Vincents famous words; therefore, Father Florovsky
rightly points out that we Orthodox (and St. Vincent) accept the
teachings of the Fathers, for example, not by subjection to the
external authority of some "democratic" consensus, but
because of their inner catholicity, the inner evidence of their
catholic truth.This profound distinction is not
immediately obvious in St. Vincents formula. Clearly,
then, the formula is
inadequate only in the sense that it cannot stand alone, without
a deeper understanding of what catholicity is and how it relates
to the Churchs true authority, which rises from the common
authority of the
Fathers, who are the criterion of catholicity (even, in some
matters, beyond and above the synods and
councils) when they speak (each one of them in every place, their oneness and location
understood, here, spiritually and not empirically) for the whole
people of God, for the entire experience of the revealed truth of
the Christian Church.

It is obvious, from what
we have written, that the Protestant fundamentalists to whom you
refer not only misunderstand us Orthodox when we speak about the Fathers, but imagine that we are
somehow limited in our thinking, such that a phrase or formula
from one of the Fathers cannot be approached in critical terms. Father
Florovsky is, once again, simply pointing out, in his statements
about St. Vincent, that this Saints famous formula for
catholicity is inadequate only if its terms are accepted in an
empirical, simple-minded way, as they are by Protestants in
deriving a theory of "universal consent" (democratic
truth) therefrom, and Roman Catholics, who find therein a
geographical and external definition of authority. Moreover, he also argues, in
one place, that St. Vincents catholic formula is as much a
statement about the permanence of Christian teaching as about
catholicity itself. Needless to say, Father Florovsky and his
"followers" do not, thereby, reject St. Vincent.

Let us finally say that
Father Florovsky would have been outraged at the idea that he collected
"followers." He considered himself a
"follower" of the Fathers, and this theme underlies all
of his theology, even his appeal for the
"Hellenization" of Orthodox thinking. One might wish
that Florovsky had been more of a "follower of the
Fathers" with regard to his early views on ecumenism, many
of which (especially his brief infatuation with Augustinian
sacramentalism) he admittedly later disavowed, but his fidelity
to the whole of Orthodoxy and the entire choir of Her Saints,
including St. Vincent of Lérins, cannot be questioned. That the
polemical meanderings of fundamentalist sectarians should impugn
this fidelity is sad indeed.

From Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XII, No. 4, pp. 19-20.

+ + +

Further Remarks on St. Vincent's Canon

What follows is an exchange of letters
between Archbishop Chrysostomos and Deacon [now Father] John Whiteford.

Master, bless.

Dear Archbishop Chrysostomos,

I was wondering if you had time to clarify a fine distinction
for me. In St. Vincent of Lerins definition of Catholicity,
he speaks of Universality and Consent as well as Antiquity. A
protestant I have corresponded with has asked for an explanation
of the distinction between Universality and Consent, since to him
it seems redundant. I have tried to explain it, but would be
interested in your input.

Here is what he writes:

Now this isnt a big point, but I do
want to get it right. So previously I searched diligently in
your book and Lérins for it and couldnt find a
non-redundant difference between consent and universality. I
have no problem in admitting it, since my larger criticism
would apply against either version. I just found that I
myself couldnt exposit it non-redundantly. Keep in mind
that this charge of circularity is different from the one you
address on p. 40 of your booklet. I have no problem with
universality being tied to the true faith. But within that
context, I just would like to see the difference between
universality and consent. Here is what your book says.
Universality: "thus an authentic teaching of the Church
would be found throughout the Church." Consent:
"Consensus means that we look at the faith commonly held
by the Fathers of the faith." Im guessing
youre not making a mere laity/teacher distinction here.
The Fathers are in focus in both. If so, whats the
subtle distinction? These two lines appear to say the same
thing.

As I see it, the two are obviously closely related ideas, as
are "Faith" and "hope", for exampleand
yet there is certainly a distinction. In this case, it is sort of
like the diference between width and depth (antiquity being
height), as I see it.

Could you illumine this further?

Asking for your prayers and kissing your right hand,

Deacon John Whiteford

+ + +

Dear Father John:

Evlogeite.

The distinction in question is a very complex one. Quite
obviously, there is no redundancy in what St. Vincent says. Your
Protestant friend, in typical fashion, thinks that language
defines theology. Theology defines language, and language serves
this task of definition poorly. In Orthodox theology, the Fathers
try to approximate the truth in the inadequate medium of human
verbal intercourse, using language carefully, intentionally, and
at times even in an ironic manner. This is true, incidentally, of
Scripture, too. Anyone who speaks Greek (and I am not speaking of
the artificial Erasmian language of seminaries, here) sees this
immediately in Scripture and in the Fathers. Thus, any notion of
redundancy, contradiction, and so on, is foreign to our thinking.
We look, rather, to our own inadequacies when reading Scripture
and the Fathers.

By catholicity, St. Vincent refers to the noumenal dimensions
of the Faith. Catholicity captures the fullness of the spiritual
reality of Christianity, which is passed on to us noetically.
Consent is nothing more than human acquiescence to that
universality, which is prompted by the knowledge of Truth
dwelling in each of us and which is mediated by the activity of
the discursive intellect. As for the notion of
"antiquity," this too is not a mere historical idea. It
refers to that golden thread of spiritual consensus that rises
out of the noumenological truths of Christianity, which is
verified externally by the consent of the Church (Holy Tradition,
the Ecumenical Synods, and so on), and which is as ancient in its
present-day manifestation as it was when the Lord revealed our
Faith to the Apostles. (Hence, what is ancient is not necessarily
Orthodox. What has endured through the ages by consent and which
rises out of the noumenal truths of Christianity, this is what is
"ancient.")

One might say that catholicity, consent, and antiquity
correspond, as well, to the ancient formula of our Faith: that
which was delivered by the Lord (universal Truth), preached by
the Apostles (the verification of this Faith by consensual
teaching), and preserved by the Fathers (that phronema
which embodies and passes on the Truth of Christianity from the
past to the present and on into Eternity).

Finally, one cannot understand St. Vincent of Lérins without
placing him in the context of the Fathers. Textual analysis,
logical machinations, and the stuff of literary evaluation do not
belong to the realm of true Patristic knowledge. The mind of the
Fathers derives from the universal truth which they pass on from
the beginning in common.